In re Inquiry Concerning Judge Anderson

Supreme Court of Georgia

June 29, 2018

INQUIRY CONCERNING JUDGE EDDIE ANDERSON.

PER
CURIAM.

This
judicial discipline matter is before the Court on the
agreement between the Director of the Judicial Qualifications
Commission (JQC) and Eddie Anderson, the Chief Magistrate
Judge for Tattnall County, to resolve the formal charges
brought by the Director against Judge Anderson with a public
reprimand, pursuant to Rule 23 of the JQC
Rules.[1] The agreement was submitted to the
JQC's Hearing Panel, which then filed it with this Court.
As explained below, we accept the agreement and order that
Judge Anderson be publicly reprimanded for his admitted
violations of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct.

According
to the formal charges, the allegations of which Judge
Anderson admits are true, his acts of judicial misconduct
arose from the repossession of a vehicle from a woman by the
owner of an automobile dealership due to lack of payment to
the dealership and lack of insurance on the vehicle. Count
One of the formal charges alleges that Judge Anderson
violated Rule 1.1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which
requires judges to "respect and comply with the
law," and Rule 1.2 (A), which requires judges to
"act at all times in a manner that promotes public
confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality
of the judiciary." Judge Anderson violated these
provisions by demanding via ex parte phone call that the
owner either return the woman's repossessed vehicle or
remit the money paid to the dealership for the vehicle and
reimburse the woman for her insurance costs. When the owner
refused these ex parte demands, Judge Anderson advised the
woman to file a case against the owner in his court, which
she later did. Judge Anderson undermined the public integrity
and impartiality of the judiciary by advising the woman to
file a case and by making ex parte demands before a case was
even filed. Moreover, Judge Anderson's demands and the
woman's subsequent lawsuit violated clearly established
law. First, the woman was neither entitled to vehicle
payments already made to the dealership nor entitled to
insurance payments she already made under the terms of the
vehicle contract. Second, the woman improperly brought the
action against the owner of the dealership with Judge
Anderson's advice. The owner was a third party to the
vehicle contract and improperly named in the suit. It was the
dealership that sold the vehicle, was a party to the contract
with the woman, and was the proper party to the suit.
Accordingly, Judge Anderson failed to respect and comply with
the law.

Count
Two of the formal charges alleges that Judge Anderson
violated Rule 2.2, which requires judges to "dispose of
all judicial matters fairly, promptly, and efficiently";
Rule 2.3, which requires judges to "perform judicial
duties without bias or prejudice"; and Rule 2.8, which
requires judges to "be patient, dignified, and courteous
to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with
whom they deal in their official capacity." Judge
Anderson violated these provisions when, as part of the ex
parte demands discussed above, he yelled at the owner for
failing to comply and threatened the owner with an adverse
judgment and court costs if litigation ensued. This conduct,
in addition to the ex parte demands themselves, showed a
temperament neither fit for nor expected of a judicial
officer. Accordingly, Judge Anderson failed to dispose of his
judicial matters fairly, to perform such duties without bias,
or to act in a dignified and courteous manner.

Count
Three of the formal charges alleges that Judge Anderson
violated Rule 2.9 (A), which says that "[j]udges shall
not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or
consider other communications made to them outside the
presence of the parties, or their lawyers, concerning a
pending proceeding or impending matter"; and Rule 2.9
(C), which says that "[j]udges shall not investigate
facts in a pending proceeding or impending matter
independently, and in making adjudicative decisions shall
consider only the evidence presented and any facts that may
properly be judicially noticed." Judge Anderson violated
these provisions by communicating with the parties
individually and engaging in an independent investigation of
the facts by seeking proof of insurance and payments from the
woman outside of the judicial process. Although Judge
Anderson may have initiated such communication with good
intentions, calling the parties individually and conducting a
personal investigation into an impending matter were both
improper. Accordingly, Judge Anderson initiated, permitted,
and considered ex parte communications and impermissibly
engaged in an independent investigation.

Finally,
Count Four of the formal charges alleges that Judge Anderson
violated Rule 2.12, which says:

(A) Judges shall require their staffs, court officials,
and others subject to their direction and control to
observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that
apply to the judges . . . and to act in a manner
consistent with the judge's obligation under this
Code.

(B) Judges with supervisory authority for judicial
performance of other judges should take reasonable
measures to assure the prompt disposition of matters
before these judges, along with the proper performance of
their other judicial responsibilities.

Count
Four further alleges that Judge Anderson violated these
provisions by failing to supervise the associate magistrate
judge he was responsible for in Tattnall County, who presided
over the woman's case after it was filed; that this
failure resulted in the associate magistrate judge issuing
orders contrary to clearly established law for the same
reasons set forth in Count One; and that, accordingly, Judge
Anderson failed to adequately supervise court officials
subject to his direction and control.[2]

After
the owner filed a complaint with the JQC, the Investigative
Panel authorized a full investigation, and Judge Anderson
submitted written responses and also met with the
Investigative Panel in person. Pursuant to JQC Rule 23, Judge
Anderson and the Director then entered an agreement to
resolve the formal charges with a public reprimand. In
authorizing this resolution, the Investigative Panel
considered in mitigation Judge Anderson's cooperation in
responding to the allegations of misconduct; his candor
during the meeting, admitting to his mistakes and pledging to
adhere to all provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct in
the future; and the fact that his acts of misconduct were not
undertaken in bad faith or with malice but rather with good
intentions to resolve the underlying dispute.

The
agreement was submitted to the Hearing Panel, which voted 2
to 1 to accept the agreement and file it with this Court for
approval. Having reviewed the record, the Court now accepts
the agreement and orders that Judge Eddie Anderson receive a
public reprimand, which shall be imposed on him in person in
open court by a judge designated by this Court. Upon the
issuance of this opinion, all filings made in this Court in
this matter shall be unsealed. See JQC Rule 23 (D).

Discipline
by consent accepted. Public reprimand. All the Justices
concur.

---------

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.